© 1999 VNN
|
EDITORIAL April 13, 1999 VNN3587 See Related VNN Stories Resolving The Guru Issue BY AMEYATMA DAS EDITORIAL, Apr 13 (VNN) — This letter was sent to the GBC (and Hari Sauri) on 4/3/99. Let me state that the purpose of this essay is to establish that guru issue is not an closed book case as the GBC has put forward. That this is a very wide open unresolved issue, and therefore this hard-nosed, hard-lined attitude by the GBC against the ritvik's is not at all appropriate. What is appropriate is more open friendly discussion and mood of loving cooperation, not threats of expulsion which has left some the only option of taking the issue to non-devotee courts to protect their rights to remain good standing members of ISKCON. After sending this to the GBC after 1 week I only recvd a response from Hari Sauri and a very short response from one other GBC-guru. I have included some of Hari Sauri's comments and my responses to him within [ brackets ] within this editorial . Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to HDG ACBS - Srila Prabhupad - the guru at whose feet all other gurus sit.. Om ajnana timirandhasya, jnanajana-salakaya caksur unmilitam yena tasmai sri-gurave namah I pray to the lotus like feet of my spiritual master that what appears to be a humble attempt by a most insignificant aspiring devotee and fallen disciple as myself will, nevertheless, be blessed with Krsna's divine sakti to have the power to tear down the walls that separate the two camps, ritvik and the GBC accepted system of diksha, that has torn the family of ISKCON apart. The purpose of this essay is to provide a means by which the whole ISKCON family, all of it's wonderful members, brothers and sisters, senior and junior, can reunite again in loving harmony for the common cause of not just spreading, but again becoming immersed in the nectarean bliss of engaging in Sri Krsna Samkirtan. May this humble and meek presentation bring relief to your paining heart, Srila Prabhupad, which has been badly bruised by our inability to carry out your most important order to us, how we will show our love for you by how well we 'cooperate together' in your absence. I am presenting this to you, the GBC, first, before I present these ideas (realizations) public (ie: VNN). In recent statements the GBC speaks of the need to carry on with the Sampradaya unchanged. The idea is to preserve the "tradition" of guru to disciple. In this way, the ritvik camp is seen as being a deviation However, by logic analysis I will prove that our current ISKCON system of diksha gurus is Not At All Traditional. The whole idea of ISKCON and GBC, it is all totally different then most of what we find in the history of the traditional sampradaya. What is the typical traditional' disciplic succession? A guru opens his own ashram. Students join and he trains them in Bhagavat philosophy and Vaishnav culture. Many disciples marry and take leave of the ashram, many become preaches and go forth and start their own ashrams. . When the first guru leaves this world those disciples who can then take on disciples of their own. But, they do so in their own ashrams that they establish themselves. Traditionally most gurus have only one ashram, not over 100 ashrams. And the successor gurus each start their own separate ashrams. If the guru had 30 disciples who latter on went on to become guru, they didn't all 30 remain in the first guru's ashram and all 30 gurus use their original guru's ashrams for the purpose of making their own disciples. (Maybe one disciple, for what ever reason, may inherit his guru's ashram, but not all 30 would remain in his ashram using it for their own purposes of being guru) My point is to show that the system we have today in ISKCON is not at all 'traditional'. Traditionally a guru's ashram was separate from the community temples. In cities like Jaganath Puri, there is one main central temple, but so many gurus all have their own ashrams scattered about. Virtually all, or all but one or so, are totally separate from the management of any temple. The only thing the guru manages is his one small ashram. And in that ashram he is the one and only ultimate authority. That means he is the Master of that ashram. There are examples of gurus who started many maths, such as Madhva, so it would be wise to study their systems as there may be some similarity with ISKCON. But, compared to the tractional system where the guru has only one ashram, ISKCON's situation is not traditional at all. The Founder-Acharya of ISKCON opened over 100 temple/ashrams which has grown now to hundreds, and he took on 1,000's of disciples. He also put in place a Governing Body Comity to manage his many temples/ashrams. All of this is not very 'traditional'. Generally a guru only opens an ashram, and not usually associated with the management of a temple (although the 6 Gosvamis of Vrndaban did this). But, Srila Prabhupad established temples, even whole communities that surround those temples, not just ashrams. And the GBC he established as the ultimate authority over all - the ashrams -temples - communities. All of this system of formal management is not 'Traditional' [ In Hari Sauri's response to this, he used a different definition of the word 'Tradtitional', and therefore he did not agree with my analysis, instead arguing that our system was traditional (in terms of his definition of the word). Below are sections of his reply and my response to them: Hari Sauri: >Well, I don't know where you got the idea that the only tradition of >guru parampara was based on a guru only having one asrama. I meant the 'typical' guru-ashram situation. Not the extra-ordinary situation. Which I grant, Srila Prabhupad and ISKCON are in the extrodinary catagory. >Also, our tradition is exactly based on the example and desire of >Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur. The establishment of individual >mathas by his followers was, as Srila PrabhupAda explained, a deviation from >his desire that there be a unified preaching effort under a GBC. Because >none else understood it, Srila Prabhupada set it up under the auspices of >ISKCON. In other words, ISKCON is the true expression of the tradition we >inherit from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta. (Note I do not like the use of this new diacritics zrlla PrabhupAda, I think it is very distracting to have cAps in the mIddlE of wOrds. And then to not start Srila Prabhupad with a capital S. Anyway, that is a whole other topic) Hari Sauri >There are in fact many systems currently in place in India. Which >ones do you want recognised as "traditional" and which ones will you reject? >What is your criteria for making such judgements? To compare ISKCON with >your "one asrama per guru" model will of course make it appear different, >but why single out that particular model for comparison? Are you saying that traditionally, either there is no "typical" guru-ashram model, or that the one guru per ashram is not typical at all? My whole purpose was leading up to the fact that having a GBC in charge of many ashrams is not 'typical' of most gurus / ashrams through out history. Therefore, ISKCON's situation is not typical. It is extra ordinary and thus we need to view it that way. I didn't mean to say that ISKCON' system is not bona-fied or that there was never any other situation like this, but I don't think the word 'traditional' can be properly used to describe it. Here is the WWW Webster's first definition of the word Tradtional: 1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) I do not see that ISKCON's system of many ashrams and a GBC is the established and customary system that has been prevalent through-out the history of our Sampradaya nor is typical of most ashrams. Not to say it is not bona-fied, it just doesn't fit the description of the way I would use 'traditional' to mean. Hari Sauri >Bhaktivinoda Thakur had a governing body (although it may have not >gone under that name it performed the same function) to oversee his >preaching efforts; Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur instructed his disciples >to have one; zrIla PrabhupAda established one during his own presence. Isn't >that enough tradition? Not the way I define tradition. My understanding and use of the word tradition, when applied to something as ancient as our Sampradaya, would mean something that is very well established over a long period of time, which has been handed down, as it is, not as something that is developing, over many generations. This, by your own admission, was given birth to in a small way by Bhaktivinod T, then more elaborately built upon, but not fully implemented by S. Bhaktisiddhanta S., and this more elaborte (yet mostly theoretical) system S. Bhaktisiddhanta S asked to be started was then implemented by HDG ACBSP. How that can be defined as 'traditional'? ].Not only does this Governing Body, the GBC, have authority over SP's communities, temples and ashrams, but they, as a single governing body, have full authority over the 'gurus' who succeeded him. Here-in lies the most non-traditional feature of ISKCON's current guru system.. What is 'traditional' about having an official Governing Body who has full authority over the successor gurus? What is traditional about that? [ Hari Sauri: >Its traditional because the founder-acarya of ISKCON set it up that >way. No, I don't mean it is not bona-fied, that is a different definition, but doing something more completely for the first time does not fit the definition of tradition. Hari Sauri: >There is certainly little difference between Madhva, >Ramanuja and zrIla PrabhupAda; as they innovated >some preaching arrangements so did Prabhupada. >But we don't see that any of them interferred with the >basic principle of guru succession, of the disciples >becoming gurus in the physical absence of their guru. ] Let me give another example how this is unique. When SP came to America he came with his own books, and he started his own ashrams. When ISKCON was founded it was done as a separate branch of the Gaudiya Math. He did not come as a representative of the Gaudiya Math. The temples and ashrams he opened were not under the control and authority of the Gaudiya Math. He did not answer to a governing body commission. He did not give the guru dakshin he collected over to the Gaudiya Math for a group of his God brothers to best decide how it would be engaged. He started his own ashrams, and he was the ultimate and separate (separate from his own guru's ashram and his God brother's ashrams) authority. That means eh was the undisputed Master in his own ashrams. He made his own decisions concerning his own ashrams independently of anyone else. And all of that IS the 'traditional' system of sampradaya. [ Hari Sauri: >Sorry it is NOT; at least not in terms of our sampradaya. >Tradition means what you inherit. Anyway, we are nit picking over this word 'tradition', it does also mean inherit, but I understand it to mean specifically those things inherited that are well established (generation after generation) as being the normal custom, not inheriting something new for the first time in it's current form. Hari Sauri: >Logically you cannot deviate from the >founder/acarya's desire as the other members >of the Gaudiya matha did and still claim you are >following "tradition." What they inherited was a united >preaching organization of approx. 64 mathas and an >order to manage them as a unified whole with a GBC. >What they did was smash that unity to pieces. In one sense, I have been standing on the side lines of this guru issue for years and the whole basis of my article was to try and avoid nit-picking arguments over details, and just stand back and look at the result. You judge a thing by it's result, is it not? And what I am seeing, regardless of who is right or wrong, is that all this fighting over the Guru issue is netting us the same result as did Srila Prabhupad's Godbrothers in their mismanagement of the Gaudiya Math. ISKCON is also being dis-unified and is also being torn apart. Now it is going to the karmi courts. And I do not place full blame just on those who have taken sides with the Ritvik argument, but I place blame on those who are in the seat of management in the way they are dealing so hard-nosed over this issue, It is their hard-nosed attitudes that have driven other good standing devotees who also very much love Srila Prabhupad to the courts. (And I place a large percent of that on the fact that Harikesh took Hamsadutta to court which created the current atmosphere that is now spreading). So, my plea is that the GBC now do whatever they can to mitigate this splitting up of ISKCON. The place where I disagree is with their attitude that they are not softening but becoming more and more hard-nosed about all this. I am not looking any more as to who is technically right or wrong, because it has gone beyond that. It doesn't matter what is traditional and what isn't, who is right or wrong. The bottom line is that the whole situation is wrong that it has reached this point of the break up of ISKCON and it is wrong for the GBC to be taking this hardnosed mood. And to say that Srila Prabhupad must remain the guru of his own ashrams, is that such a major deviation from our philosophy as to warrant expulsion? Then show me the precidence in shastra or recent history that shows that such an attitude warrants the hard-nosed line the GBC is taking. Srila Prabhupad expelled GBC members who preached that Prabhupad was actually God, but, that is not the same as saying SP is the guru of his own ashrams. So, where is the precidence of expelling members for this? Plus, everytime the GBC and / or the current gurus act in this way against these senior devotees it drives fuirther and further large wedges between the 'grand disciples' and these older senior devotees. I have witnessed far too many times how grand disciples will speak of some older senior devotee, who happens to side with the Ritvik ideas, with vile words, ridiculing them publicly and putting them down, far below themselves. Not just not being respectful to a senior devotee, but actually being very offensive. This is the atmosphere the current GBC policy has created. This is why I know that SP would be more pleased with some compromise and some adjustments. I cannot imagine he will be only pleased if all such devotees who say that only he should be seen as guru, those same devotees who love him with all their heart and soul, that he will only be pleased when they are expelled from his temples. It is very sad that the GBC cannot use more common sense in their approach of dealing with this issue. ] Contrast this with the current system in ISKCON. If an ISKCON guru opens a new temple or ashram, he will do so ON BEHALF of the GBC. The new temple / ashram he makes, it becomes a part of ISKCON. Thus, he acts "on behalf of" and as a "representative" of ISKCON's GBC. He is not acting as his own independent authority, or his own master, who opens his own independent ashram. He is not the sole "Master" of the ashrams he oversees or even starts. If he is not the Master, the sole authority of those ashrams, then he is Not the Guru. This is NOT the traditional system. Rather, those actions fit within the definition of "Representative Guru" who acts on behalf of the ultimate authority, the GBC. Let, me give the same example from another angle. What if a current ISKCON guru were to open a new ashram / temple, but instead of making it an ISKCON temple / ashram, he starts his own separate mission and claims the new ashram as his. He establishes himself as the Sole Ultimate Authority. the sole MASTER, guru, of His Own Ashram. And all the new devotees that come to that new ashram this guru alone claims himsellf as their sole ultimate direct spiritual authority, the Master. Meaning the new devotees are not to accept the GBC as their authority. What would the GBC have to say about this "ISKCON" guru? The GBC would reprimand him, and if he did not conform to the GBC guidelines his guru status (at least within ISKCON) will be revoked and he will be expelled from ISKCON, as this is not the authorized ISKCON system. BUT, what is very interesting is that what I just described IS the traditional system of disciplic succession. And it was exactly what Srila Prabhupad, himself, did. He started his own ashrams and made his own disciples and placed himself as their ultimate direct authority - all separate from his guru's and God brothers' ashrams. Thus, by analytical study of the current situation, which is the situation that Srila Prabhupad set up for us to follow, we see that it is not the traditional system at all. [ Hari Sauri: > Sorry to disagree but what you have described in terms of the >Gaudiya Matha is the deviation from the tradition. ISKCON was the >fulfillment of the tradition by the sole member who really understood what >he had inherited. Again, we are using the word tradition in two different ways. I still say the current ISKCON system is not traditional, it is not the long time, generation after generation, well established custom of how ashrams are ran or how the disciplic succession has been carried on in the past. Yes, in the sense of GBC being the authority, etc, I agree this is the system we inherited and the system Srila Prabhupad established for us, but, my point stands that it is not a well established tradition.My point was that we are charting new waters. There has not been a generation after generation of such a system to look back on and see what are the true traditional customs, rather, we are treading that new water ourselves as the first sucessor generation under a GBC authority. That was my point. We are in new uncharted waters, we are not following a well established tradtion from which we can all look back on and say, this is clearly a deviation from the established tradition and this is not. We are in new waters at the present. That was my whole point. ] Thus, the GBC's argument that their system is 'traditional' has no basis. [ Hari Sauri: >Rather the opposite Ameyatma prabhu. I think I have shown that what >you have stated has no basis. It may have some basis somewhere in some >sampradaya, but it doesn't in ours. The "GBC's system" is actually zrIla >PrabhupAda's system, SBSST's system and Bhaktivinoda Thakur's system, all >based on their understanding of their inheritence from the six goswamis. No, I disagree, You even indicated that S. Bhaktivinod's 'GBC' was not well defined or established, was not the same system we have today, and SBSST's system was mostly theoretical, that is was never firmly established until it was done so by our SP. That exactly fits my point, that we are not in the midst of a well established traditional system, we are in new waters being the first of the suscessor generations to inherit this system of GBC authority over a large number of the Founder-Acharya's ashrams. Thus, we in new waters and my point was therefore, that when the GBC takes the hard-nosed line that the system which they have interpreted as being the right system, is the 'traditional' system, I say it is not, and then when the GBC mock the ritvik as being totally unfounded, I say that our own system is new and not so well founded, so, I think it needs more refining or more careful examination of what is the system SP left us to follow. Judging by the results fo the current mood of the GBC to expell so many older devotees, I don't see that a good sign at all that the current course the GBC is on is the right one. ] Lets further analyze the current ISKCON 'gurus', by analyzing their "actions" how are we to classify their actual positions? As I explained, they preach on-behalf of ISKCON, they make new temples / ashrams, on behalf of ISKCON, they make new devotees, on behalf of ISKCON. They do NOT do any of these things Independent of the authority of ISKCON's GBC. They are not the sole masters of their own separate ashrams, nor are they the sole masters of the ashrams or communities where they reside. The GBC remains the ultimate authority in all circumstances. Thus, when new devotees join ISKCON, they must accept as their ultimate direct authority, the GBC. Over and Above their 'diksha' guru. The GBC is to be accepted OVER and ABOVE the 'diksha' guru. None of this traditional at all. And, in ALL aspects the current ISKCON gurus only act as guru having been empowered to act as such by the authority of Srila Prabhupad and the GBC. The GBC has the authority to reprimand or revoke their guru status at any time. Thus, the GBC is ISKCON's ultimate authority. The GBC, acting as representatives of Srila Prabhupad, is the ultiamte auhtority, or MASTER of ISKCON. And in every way the current gurus act as subordinate to, on behalf of, and as REPRESENTATIVEs of the GBC. Even as 'gurus', they are acting as Representative Gurus. And "Representative Guru" is the definition of Ritvik. Is it not? [ Hari Sauri: > Every guru is a representative of his guru no matter what system you >adopt for preaching. Yes, but, not representative of a GBC. That was my point. This is not a 'typical' traditional system, for a guru to be representative of a governing body, and for that governing body to virtually have full authority over even his ability to be guru, which is in effect the net result of the ISKCON system. ] When the GBC authorized 'guru' opens a new ashram, he does so on behalf of ISKCON, and makes devotee's on behalf of ISKCON, thus he is acting as ISKCON's representative. Therefore, when he preforms fire yajna, he is also doing this on behalf of the ISKCON GBC who he represents and who has authorized him to act. In every aspect the GBC remains the ultimate direct authority of all members of ISKCON, regardless of who 'initiated' them. We are initiated into this Vaishnav Sampradaya. The authority for giving that initiation does NOT come independently from the current guru, the authority for the initiation comes from the GBC. The ISKCON initiator gurus are acting as "Representative Gurus", empowered by the GBC to act on their behalf within Srila Prabhupad's ISKCON ashrams..That is simply the factual description of what their actions and position is. And that IS the definition of Ritvik. [ Note, I will give more explanation of that definition further on] Traditionally disciples leave their guru's ashram and start their own ashrams. By doing so they become the sole authority, Master, guru, of their own ashram. But, ISKCON's gurus reside in Srila Prabhupad's ashrams, not their own ashrams. And Srila Prabhupad, as the eternal master of his asrhams has set up system of GBC to manage his ashrams after his departure, so that his legacy will continue. In Srila Prabhupad's ashrams the current gurus are NOT the sole authority, thus they are not the Masters of the ashrams where they act, they only act as **empowered representatives on behalf of the governing body**, the GBC. The GBC, Srila Prabhupad, remains as the Master of his own ashrams - throught the management of the GBC. This is all not traditional. This IS rtivk. And this IS the system that Srila Prabhupad set up in his ashrams. [ Hari Sauri: >If you want to define "representative" as "ritvik" this >appears to me to be overly simplistic within the context of the present >discussion. The meaning of "ritvik" as I understand the GBC's view to be, >and as it is persistently presented by its proponents, is the position of >accepting post-samadhi diksa initiations. This is understood to be a >deviation from tradition (which ever bonafide tradition you want to take) >and from zrIla PrabhupAda's desire. My point, which you tried to diminish, but I do not accept it that way, is that the current system in ISKCON is also not traditional, in the way I have defined traditional. It is not the long standing tradition that a leading Acharya creates a GBC body that has virtually full authority over the sucessor gurus. What S. Bhaktivinod T did was not at all the same. And SBS, although formulated the current system, did not implement it. It is something newly established by ACBSP and ours is the first succession to exist under such a system. That is not typical, that is not the definition of a tradition. Therefore, when the GBC says that their system IS traditional and the Ritvik system is not, I don't see any actual basis to that argument. Of course, what it comes down to is what really did Srila Prabhupad set up? Was it ritivk, or diksha system? I am not saying I fully accept the idea that Srila Prabhupad wanted and set up a ritvik system. I am still undecided on that issue. But, theorectically I stand by my argument that ISKCON's current system of an Acharya having set up a GBC that has virtually absolute and full authority over the successor gurus is no more long-time established traditional system then what the ritviks are putting forth. I stand by that view. I am not saying which is right, which SP wanted, but I will stand by the argument that the idea of a governing body having full authority over sucessor gurus is no more traditional then a ritvik system. (I will add here: *** Therefore, I say this is still an Open Question, who is the real diksha guru in such a system? A system where the initiating guru is not the ulimtate authority over the disciples of his own ashram, but instead a GBC is the ultimate authority, and the ashram is not even the diksha guru's, but the previous guru's ashram Who is to be seen as the true Diksha. *** Let me make a further example. Let us assume that Srila Prabhupad were still physically present and some of his disciples start initiating new devotees as their disciples, while still residing in Prabhupad's ashrams. There woudl be no question that such a thing is wrong. Proper etiquette is to wait until one's guru has departed, and secondly, but, even if one did not wait, there is no question of doing so within Srila Prabhupad's own ashram while he yet remained. Today, all that has changed is that Srila Prabhupad has departed. BUT, he has left in charge of his ashrams a GBC, whom he himself said is to be the ultimate authority in his absence. Therefore, the GBC is still here, and is still functioning and acting on behalf of SP. Therefore, is it proper to claim new devotees as one's own disciples in the presence of the living body of the GBC, which is the living extension of SP's spiritual authority? Thus, is it the GBC as a body, the true diksha initator, acting on behalf of SP, and not the individual priest who performs the ritual? These are legitimate questions which I raise, being made on the basis of the logic I am putting forthi in my arguments. ) > Ritvikism as defined by Ameyatma prabhu is not the "ritvikism" that >is being presented as a challenge to the GBC body. So his logic is >unfortunately meaningless within the current framework of debate. If >Ameyatma prabhu presents something pertinent to the current meanings of >"ritvik" we can have further discussion. (I just did, above) Meaningless? We shall see. I tried to avoid directly going into the current Ritvik idea on purpose. But, I would not say my arguments are meaningless. The way you are defining traditinoal maybe you see it that way, but I see it entirely different. It is clear to me that there has been no other time in our recent Sampradaya where such a system of a GBC having authority over sucessor gurus has ever been established. (The GBC argue that their system IS the traditional system of guru -> disciple sucession, where the disciple, on disapperance of the guru, himself becomes guru. That is the 'traditional' system and they claim their system is that same traditional system. Then the GBC argue that Ritvik is NOT traditional at all, and since it is Not traditional it has to be seen as a complete deviation and those who argue for it being accepted have to be seen as having deviated from the path and must be harshly rejected, as they see ritvik as some sort of cancer threatening the system they are defending. The purpose of this essay of ameyatma das is to show that the system Srila Prabhupad established is not at all traditional. Not to say it is bogus, I agree, S Bhaktivinod started something more simple, SBS elaborated, but did not implement, then ACBSP implemented a system of GBC having full authority over the following sucessor gurus who reside in his ashrams. That is not tradtional in the sense of it having been well established. The GBC claim that the gurus are Full Diksha gurus and must be seen that way by those whom they initiate. But, there is no such recent tradition where diksha gurus are under the full complete authority of a governing body - while still remaining in the ashrams of their guru. Therefore, this argument by the GBC that their current system is THE traditionial system is a baseless argument. Thus, their argument that their system is thus valid because it is traditional and the ritvik system is automatically bogus because it is not traditional is also false. Which bring the current GBC guru system and the Ritvik system on an equal level as far as which has traditional precedence over the other. Which then leave wide open the questions I put forth, who is to be recognized as the true Diksha initiator? The lessor authority, the priest who performs the yajna? Or the ultimate ISKCON authority, the GBC, which is the living extension of SP? ) With Srila Prabhupad giving the Diksa during his physical presence that question was nul and void. There was no other governing body which stood full authority over him. He was the ulimtate authority of his own ashrams. But, currently, the ISKCON 'gurus' are not the ultimate authorities of their own so-called disciples. Therefore I put forth the question, who then, is the real Diksha guru of those who are being now initiated? This, is uncharted water. There is no such traditional long time established system to look back on. Thus, this question must be answsred. And, the GBC argument that their's is the real traditional system and ritvik is not, is baseless. That is the conclusion of my analysis. And, by my same analysis I feel the current system is more a ritvik system then not. ] To defeat this logic of ameyatma das, then you must defeat that the current gurus are not representatives of the GBC (or under their authority). You must establish that they, the gurus, are the ultimate authorities, the real Masters, gurus, of their own ashrams and their own disciples - separate from any overshadowing authority of the GBC. You must establish that the current gurus are not empowered by the GBC, and that they are not subject to the reprimand of revokation of guru status by the GBC. And, if you establish these things, then you have totally abolished the system Srila Prabhupad set up and have abolished the authority of the GBC and basically have turned all of ISKCON's ashrams over to the current gurus. We were very close to that system in the early to mid 80's when the Zonal Acharya system was prevalant. At that time the ISKCON gurus were acting as the sole MASTERS over the ashrams they had control over. BUT, those were Srila Prabhupad's ISKCON ashrams, not their own. So, Srila Prabhupad's other disciples fought this system and demanded the abolishment of the Zonal Acharya system in ISKCON. What the GBC have now established does more acurately reflect the system that Srila Prabhupad had envisioned, where the GBC as a body is the ultimate authority, and not the individual gurus. However, by analyzing the current system as I have above outlined, it can only be concluded that this current system in place and supported by and defended by the GBC, is none other then the empowered representative system called Ritvik. Isn't it amazing. Today the current GBC are so staunchly opposed to the whole idea and concept of Ritvik. They have officially called it deviant. They have demonized any and all who promote it. They have stated that to follow it is a fall down. And they are expelling members who will not abandon their adherence to it. Isn't it amazing that at the very same time they are so staunchly and bitterly opposed to even the slightest thought of rivik, that THEY, themselves, in actuallity ARE the RITVIKs? (or at least may very well be) Their system which they fervently defend as being the authorized system that Srila Prabhupad had established for us to follow, is none other then the Ritvik system of empowered representative gurus who initiate new devotees into Srila Prabhupad's ashjrams on behalf of the true ashram authority and master, the GBC (which is the living body that is acting on behalf of SP, so those who say you must have a living guru, we do. SP lives in his books, and in the continued authority of the GBC - as long as it proper represents SP - which some say it has not done very well at).. Devotees are currently ready to go to court and sue and tear ISKCON apart totally over a wall that has divided us, when in actuallity there is no wall at all. It was only an illusion in our minds. Again, I put the challenge, can this logic of ameyatma das be defeated? Can anyone logically prove that the current gurus are 'not' representatives of the GBC ( That the ISKCON gurus only initiate on their behalf? That the real initator is that entity who is the real master and authority of that ashram, not a subordinate? ) As far as all this idea of reinitation, I see that we are initiated into the this ISKCON branch of our Sampradaya. And only one such initiation is required, regardless of what happens to that empowered representative initiator or priest who performs the yajna on behalf of the GBC. (The new devotee is now an official member of the ISKCON branch of the Sampradaya, and that doesn't change even if the officiating initiator guru leaves or falls down. When one is initiated, one become a member of Srila Prabhupad's ashrams, not the ashram of the person who performs the fire yajna. Isn't that grounds enough to determine who the real guru is? Let our GBC answer this question: Who is the real current Master for the new devotees of Srila Prabhupad's ashrams? Is it the current priest who perform the fire yajna or HDG ACBSP through his authorized living extension, the GBC? If they answer it is the new current priest who is the real master, the real diksha guru, then 1,000's of Prabhupad disciples will not accept that SPs ashrams have been turned over to these men. That is not the system SP set up, to turn over the ashrams to the priests who perform the fire yajna. If we say that SP remains the real Master of his own ashrams, especially through his living GBC body, then, is he not also the real true diksha initiator, or at least the GBC as a body?) The current system the GBC has for established for selecting and empowering the representative gurus, that can still go on as it is, with on going improvements and changes as they are deemed to be needed. What I am proposing will not change anything externally, not immediately. I am only purposing that we all accept what is the current REALITY. And that is that the current gurus are not independent of the GBC, they are not the direct ultimate authorities or Masters, gurus, of their own independent ashrams, but that they are empowered to initiate or perform the rituals of the intiations on behalf of and as representatives of the ISKCON GBC within Srila Prabhupad's ashrams. That is the only official change that needs to take place. The change is only in the way we view what is currently going on. We don't have to change what is actually going on. The majority of those changes were done in the mid to late 80's. By doing this, the walls that have been dividing our movement for 21 years will come crashing down. And ALL members of ISKCON, ALL disciples and 'grand' disciples of Srila Prabhupad can reunite again and again cooperate out of our common love for Srila Prabhupad. We can cease this senseless waste of our time and energy fighting over this issue and can all go back to doing what we were all trained to do, what we all long to do: To dive into the ocean of transcendental bliss and drown in the ecstasy of Krsna Sankirtan. Our energy and time must be spent on spreading the glories of Srila Prabhupad, Sri Caitanya and Sri Sri Radha-Krsna, not finghting over what really is only a small change of view. By simple logic analyzation ameyatma das has shown that ISKCON's current system is the ritvik system. So what is all this fighting about? Why the GBC is acting so stone hearted and threatening to expel those who speak out in favor of ritivk, when in reality the GBC and current gurus ARE the real Ritviks? If the GBC will officially embrace this logic put forth by ameyatma sa then there will be no need for the ritviks to take the GBC to court. The ritviks must accept that the current ISKCON system IS the ritvik system. The fighting will cease from all sides. Why not accept this simple logic of ameyatma das and stop all this madness? Why not dovetail our time and energy only to preaching, instead of fighting and sueing one another? This is the only solution that will relieve Srila Prabhupad of his current suffering, because it is not a concocted solution, it is the actual position. Let me give one last advice. 2 systems should be allowed and should co-exist. The current system we have in ISKCON, the empowered 'guru' system or representative guru system, (the ritvik system), that must go on in ISKCON's ashrams as it is. Simultaneously some devotees may wish to branch out from ISKCON and start their own ashrams, not under the direct umbrella of the ISKCON GBC. But, not inimical to ISKCON either. And neither should ISKCON be inimical to them. This means if some devotees want to act as their own guru, as the direct ultimate authority of their own ashrams, they are free to do so. But NOT in Srila Prabhupad's ISKCON ashrams. To do so they have to go out and open their own separate ashram and as such we are all free to do so. Acting in this way they will not be under the thumb of the GBC, they will not be subject to the GBC authority, and they will not get any benefits of being a part of ISKCON either, but, there should be no animosity between them and ISKCON. We are all Vaishnav's, Krsna Bhakta's and followers of HDG ACBSP. So, both systems are there, the traditional system by which a guru starts his own ashram and is the sole authority of his own ashram, and ISKCON's system of GBC managing Prabhupad's ashrams and empowering representative gurus to initiate of behalf of the GBC (Prabhupad). [ Hari Sauri: > This sounds fine. I would agree here with Ameyatma prabhu, and in >fact, we do have Godbrothers who have already gone out and established >themselves as gurus independent of ISKCON. As long as they don't criticise >ISKCON we wish them well. Unfortunately most of those that have gone off on >their own did so on the basis of their negative feelings towards ISKCON and >have used those feelings as a basis for recruitment (very often from ISKCON >centers) to their ranks. If such sniping and poaching were stopped, a >peaceful coexistence could easily be achieved. I agree. And I think that will come, as many of those who left did so under the fire of the mid-80's Zonal Acharya system - which fried out a lot of us one way or the other. ] If we can all come to terms with the actual situation, analyze it carefully, there is no other alternative but to accept these conclusions. The result of NOT accepting this and the GBC continue to head in their current direction spells only doom and gloom. The current position of the GBC is absurd when viewed by the logic I am presenting here. They are so much staunchly opposed to the same exact system which they are so staunchly trying to defend, namely the one and the same Ritvik system. Isn't that absurd? [ Hari Sauri: > I would agree except that your logical analysis isn't connected to >the actual situation. > > I appreciate your intentions Ameyatma prabhu. Its certainly heart >rending to have the kind of hard line politics going on in ISKCON that are >presently being used to drag us into court. I hope that those that are doing >it will one day come to sense and stop their attacks on the GBC and realize >that if they don't agree they are perfectly free to go out and start their >own temples and have their own systems of preaching. > > Your humble servant, > Hari-zauri dAsa ... Accepting what I am saying wouldn't change the way the GBC is doing things, it just means that instead of the current 'gurus' claiming themselves the true diksha master's of 'their' disciples, the gurus would admit they are only performing the formal ceremony on behalf of the GBC, who is the new devotee's true ultimate authority (the ultimate authority of an ashram is the guru - master of that ashram - that is logical sense). That is very close to the current established system. The current system is ritvik, but the GBC can't see that. They are thinking their system is the age old traditional system, but not with a GBC which stands as the uiltimate authority. That is the major non-traditional aspect of ISKCON's system. If the GBC can make this adjustment, it will defuse the whole situation. Thus, they must do it. To remain hard-nosed, hard lined against it will only result in the total break up of ISKCON. Thus, their whole work shall go down as a total failure. A thing is judged by it's result. ] What will be the result of accepting that the current gurus are Representatives of the GBC and that they only act under the GBC authority and only act on Behalf of the GBC as ritviks? The result will be that the walls that are dividing us will come tumbling down. The result will be that we will all reunite and rebuild ISKCON back up to a super class spiritual society ready and able to take charge of the whole world. Another result is that we can look back on the instructions Srila Prabhupad gave in May, then in July of 77, etc., and we can see how both are correct. Those who defend the current GBC are correct, AND those who defend the Final Order and Ritvik ideas are also correct. We were all right. So why have we taken opposite sides and are ready to tear ISKCON apat at the seams over an issue that we are all ultimately in agreement on? Absurd madness. It is time to stop this madness. Which will you, as a GBC, decide to do for our most dear Srila Prabhupad? So, I am sending this to all the GBC I have addresses for FIRST, and next week, April 9th or so, I will send to VNN for ISKCON's general public. I do not see how this logic of ameyatma das can be defeated. If you noticed, I haven't touched on the philosophic arguments or the technical arguments as to what Srila Prabhupad said, my focus is on the logical analysis of the actual situation. Please, consider these things carefully. Take good advice even if it comes from such a fool as myself. All I want is to try and relieve the pain in Srila Prabhupad's heart. If after reading this you can only conclude that I am now to be seen as a deviant ritvik, a fallen deviant who must be expelled, then I will be very sad for that. But, if that is your conclusion, then you must first defeat my logic and reasoning, not by strong arm politics, but by logic and reason itself. If you can't do that, then accept this humble advice of ameyatma das.. aum hrim srim kllim - sri sri radha-shyamasundaram namah --- ys ameyatma das ameyatma@iname.com Chk out my web page at: http://home.earthlink.net/kgrafx See Related VNN Stories | Comment on this Story | Contact VNN regarding this Story
NEWS DESK | EDITORIALS | TOP |
